$300 Headphones for speaker lover

[AMR/iFi audio]

9 minutes ago, GUTB said:

...and then dipped my toes into hi-fi with an HE-6 (when those were still being made) and I knew right off the bat I'd never go back to mid-fi.

 

 

Something special about HE-6, ain't it  ?

[crenca]

To the OP:

 

In this price range I have tried a dozen or so at least.  I keep coming back to the Oppo PM-3.  It does everything well (if not top of the line) though most folks with DSP bump up the treble a modest amount.

 

Like I said in that review, the HE4XX can give the PM-3 a real run however.  I know the Sennheiser 6xx series is everybody's favorite girlfriend from high school, but in my opinion you can do better these days.  However, with some DSP it does many things well but I could not work out a curve that allowed it to rise to the level of the PM-3 or HE4XX (in the end I just did not like the treble).

[dalethorn]

I just read a review of MrSpeakers' Aeon open and closed headphones on headfonia, and was very impressed.  At $800 each they're well above the Senn HD6xx price level, but probably worth looking into compared to Oppo's.

[Summit]

11 hours ago, dalethorn said:

I just read a review of MrSpeakers' Aeon open and closed headphones on headfonia, and was very impressed.  At $800 each they're well above the Senn HD6xx price level, but probably worth looking into compared to Oppo's.

 

You know that MrSpeaker Aeon use planar magnetic drivers, don’t you? 

[Mshenay]

17 hours ago, crenca said:

To the OP:

 

In this price range I have tried a dozen or so at least.  I keep coming back to the Oppo PM-3.  It does everything well (if not top of the line) though most folks with DSP bump up the treble a modest amount.

 

Like I said in that review, the HE4XX can give the PM-3 a real run however.  I know the Sennheiser 6xx series is everybody's favorite girlfriend from high school, but in my opinion you can do better these days.  However, with some DSP it does many things well but I could not work out a curve that allowed it to rise to the level of the PM-3 or HE4XX (in the end I just did not like the treble).

 

Yea these would be my suggestions, the HE 4XX shows up second hand on a few US and Canadian Markets from time to time. It'll work nicely with the amp you have and if you need something Closed back the PM 3 is a phenomenal options as well!

 

My thoughts on them are as followed if you want a deeper dive,

HE 4XX

Oppo PM3

 

I'd avoid the HD 6#X and Audeze cans entirely at this point as their pretty finicky with amplification and what not.  

[ted_b]

Thanks for the input.  I get the loaner HE-400is on Wednesday (Nighthawk Carbon too).  Will the HE 4XX sound similar enough to the HE400is that I should not need to evaluate them realtime?

[dalethorn]

9 hours ago, Summit said:

 

You know that MrSpeaker Aeon use planar magnetic drivers, don’t you? 

 

Yes.  I assumed that Oppo was planar too, but maybe not?

[AMR/iFi audio]

19 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

Yes.  I assumed that Oppo was planar too, but maybe not?

 

Yes, they are. Both PM-1 and PM-3 are planars.

[crenca]

4 hours ago, ted_b said:

Will the HE 4XX sound similar enough to the HE400is that I should not need to evaluate them realtime?

 

There is open debate as rather the 4XX is a tweaked HE400i, a tweaked 400s, or something in between.  

 

In other words, I don't know...

[buonassi]

curious what you think of the HE400i.  I have a pair, and have an opinion on them, but don't want to set about the expectation bias bug.  

 

As @AMR/iFi audio stated, I second the HD600, especially if you want to do slight tweaking to the 4-10k region using a surgical para eq.  It is truly under-appreciated how such an old set of phones can still sound so good with a proper upstream chain.  Having said that, I don't think there's a headphone on the planet that can do what room speakers do.  They are different, and fulfill different needs.  That said, in general, headphones will usually deliver more linear bass while speakers will treble.  All has to do with standing waves, resonances, and the length of the sine waves in question.  

 

Also, check this out, may be helpful since you mentioned IEMs sounding better than your over ears. 

 

10 minutes ago, buonassi said:

The issue with IEMs is ear canal resonances creating peaks in treble energy.  As others have suggested, the foams are miles ahead of silicone as they prevent reflections that exacerbate the resonances.  Also, once you have foams, experiment with insertion depth.  The closer to the ear canal, the higher up in khz the resonance will occur, which may sound better/worse based on your preferences.  What's worse is that these resonances tend to happen right at the sibilance region and create fatigue.  

 

I have the best results with the large comply foam (authentic).  I've tried many others, and there's just something special about the comply surface that maintains a great seal while limiting reflections.  

 

Having said all of that.  I have yet to find an over ear that avoids the resonances as well as a TOTL IEM fitted with foams.  Over-ears create resonances too, even the open ones.  Even an over ear like the HD600, known for smooth treble, has to be worked on in an eq program before I can get it as smooth and linear sounding in the treble as my JH Angies.  When going to IEMs you give up on width, but boy can you get an amazing FR if you keep at it.  

 

for 45USD you can try the zero audio carbo tenore + 15 more bucks for the foams and you'll know just how good IEMs can sound.

 

 

[mourip]

On 12/22/2017 at 5:22 PM, davide256 said:

If you attend audio shows, you will notice that Linear Tube Audio demos the Microzotl 2 mostly with Audeze headphones. Unfortunately these are more than $300. At that price point the Sennheisers are hard to beat. If you can push closer to $500, HifiMan is nice but doesn't have the bass of the Audeze phones. I prefer the Audeze Sine to the Hifiman HE400i, richer tone colors, but its closed back is a compromise in listening comfort, the Hifiman 400 series is more comfortable for extended listening sessions. But either one will give you that transparency that conventional diaphragm headphones struggle to convey, something the Microzotl 2 can deliver in spades. In full disclosure, I tend to dislike cone diaphragm speaker/headphones as I can hear the resonance of the driver materials and its enclosure, gravitating to electrostatics and planars. Others may not hear this difference.

 

 

I am using an LTA MicroZotl 2 with their LPS and now their new "Ultralinear" amp with uses a 17JN6 Compactron tube with the same basic circuit as Berning's ZH230. Remarkable sound. I have not yet fully explored the headphone output but hope to with my Senn 650's.

 

The best HP's I have heard are the Senn 800S and my old AKG 1000, which I never should have sold :-)

 

To be clear these are way over budget...

[ted_b]

6 hours ago, buonassi said:

curious what you think of the HE400i.  I have a pair, and have an opinion on them, but don't want to set about the expectation bias bug.  

 

As @AMR/iFi audio stated, I second the HD600, especially if you want to do slight tweaking to the 4-10k region using a surgical para eq.  It is truly under-appreciated how such an old set of phones can still sound so good with a proper upstream chain.  Having said that, I don't think there's a headphone on the planet that can do what room speakers do.  They are different, and fulfill different needs.  That said, in general, headphones will usually deliver more linear bass while speakers will treble.  All has to do with standing waves, resonances, and the length of the sine waves in question.  

 

Also, check this out, may be helpful since you mentioned IEMs sounding better than your over ears. 

 

 

 

The he-400is arrive today.

 

And  yes I use my Zero Audio Carbon with foam.  I love them for what they are.

[mourip]

On 12/28/2017 at 4:34 PM, GUTB said:

...Also, try connecting your headphones directly up to the speaker taps of a power amp. You'll be surprised how good they sound.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Balanced-XLR-to-Speaker-Taps-PINS-Hifiman-HE4-HE5-HE6-HE5LE-HE500-cable-adapter/172733755771?hash=item2837bbf17b:m:mWLPr3D5iLFMYAYo16bL5_g

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Dyson-Audio-Gotham-Hifiman-HE-6-HE-5LE-HE-4-Headphone-Cable-2M-Bananas/112462350403?hash=item1a2f474843:g:TFEAAOSwkRhZVfMa

 

If you have a tube amp you can use the HE-Adapter to impedance match with the 8 Ohm taps.

 

A big YES here. I could never understand the resistance over on Head-Fi to using a regular power amp to run headphones. I did it for years including using tubes amps, class A amps, and class D amps. It is easily possible to get great sound from a good speaker amp you already own. Just be careful with class D amps as some of them do not like their L&R output grounds tied together.

[dalethorn]

9 hours ago, buonassi said:

.....Having said that, I don't think there's a headphone on the planet that can do what room speakers do.  They are different, and fulfill different needs.  

 

 

 

Like what?  Besides listening to music?

[AMR/iFi audio]

36 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

Like what?  Besides listening to music?

 

It's abaut a way the music is served. Headphones aren't speakers and vice versa.

[dalethorn]

5 hours ago, AMR/iFi audio said:

 

It's abaut a way the music is served. Headphones aren't speakers and vice versa.

 

Oh, that's not true.  Both have speaker drivers.  Both play the exact same music.  Both are required (for high fidelity) to reproduce each frequency without bias.  Both can do the same exact job, if they are implemented correctly.

 

Don't take my word as final, take the evidence of billions of headphone users, and trillions of music tracks they download and listen to.  I know this technology, and I'm often amused to see the disinformation posted about headphones.

[AMR/iFi audio]

42 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

Oh, that's not true.  Both have speaker drivers.  Both play the exact same music.  Both are required (for high fidelity) to reproduce each frequency without bias.  Both can do the same exact job, if they are implemented correctly.

 

Don't take my word as final, take the evidence of billions of headphone users, and trillions of music tracks they download and listen to.  I know this technology, and I'm often amused to see the disinformation posted about headphones.

 

You've got good points there, but what I'm all about is how the music is delivered. Picture open-baffle speakers with their scale for example. No headphones are able to display this, simply because something more than our ears is at works in the former case. This is the very reason why the overall experience is entirely different, even though we hear the same music. 

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, dalethorn said:

 

Oh, that's not true.  Both have speaker drivers.  Both play the exact same music.  Both are required (for high fidelity) to reproduce each frequency without bias.  Both can do the same exact job, if they are implemented correctly.

 

Don't take my word as final, take the evidence of billions of headphone users, and trillions of music tracks they download and listen to.  I know this technology, and I'm often amused to see the disinformation posted about headphones.

 

Dale,

 

You have got to know you are swimming upstream on this.  The binaural presentation of the stereo effect (which is mostly responsible for soundstage, imaging, and the like) through HP's is not the same (and can not be) as a regular two channel setup.  While the limitations of HP's binaural presentation can be mitigated by crossfeed, etc. it can not be eliminated (excepting, perhaps, by advanced DSP "3D" processing which is just now becoming commercially available).  The stereo effect works by design through a two channel system sitting in front of (forming a triangle) to the listener.  This can not be perfectly replicated by binaural HP's (excepting, perhaps, by DSP).

 

It is not "disinformation" to note this reality.  Now, this is not to say that perhaps some mischaracterize this reality, or that HP's can not in some sense do soundstage, imaging, etc. to the satisfaction of many or even most listeners...

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, AMR/iFi audio said:

 

You've got good points there, but what I'm all about is how the music is delivered. Picture open-baffle speakers with their scale for example. No headphones are able to display this, simply because something more than our ears is at works in the former case. This is the very reason why the overall experience is entirely different, even though we hear the same music. 

 

 

 

The thing is, you're saying "....this _____...." is absolutely true, when it's not.  The technical things you're describing don't translate to good stereo sound in the ears.  What I hear from my headphones sounds like the real thing, and it's partly due to EQ (critically important) and partly to good recordings (also critically important).

 

The ONLY thing speakers do that headphones don't is smear the sound around in a room.

[dalethorn]

46 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Dale,

 

You have got to know you are swimming upstream on this.  The binaural presentation of the stereo effect (which is mostly responsible for soundstage, imaging, and the like) through HP's is not the same (and can not be) as a regular two channel setup.  While the limitations of HP's binaural presentation can be mitigated by crossfeed, etc. it can not be eliminated (excepting, perhaps, by advanced DSP "3D" processing which is just now becoming commercially available).  The stereo effect works by design through a two channel system sitting in front of (forming a triangle) to the listener.  This can not be perfectly replicated by binaural HP's (excepting, perhaps, by DSP).

 

It is not "disinformation" to note this reality.  Now, this is not to say that perhaps some mischaracterize this reality, or that HP's can not in some sense do soundstage, imaging, etc. to the satisfaction of many or even most listeners...

 

The only thing I'm swimming upstream against is the fact that headphones and speakers are mixed into one subforum here, unlike most sites, and since the participants are quite obviously biased toward speakers (for a number of reasons), it's to be expected that they feel better about their speakers if they can convince themselves that headphones are "not as good" for music listening.  Me, I know better. I understand the physical differences, and why a person who is able to play a musical performance at realistic volume levels in their home might prefer that to having a headphone on their head or in their ears.  I can even understand the whumpy-thumpy aspect of the sound pressure on the body for those who like it (I certainly don't, although in a live performance it doesn't usually bother me).  All of that I understand, but none of it has to do with the sound, at least the beautiful natural sound I hear with my playback system.

[AMR/iFi audio]

20 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

The thing is, you're saying "....this _____...." is absolutely true, when it's not.  The technical things you're describing don't translate to good stereo sound in the ears.  What I hear from my headphones sounds like the real thing, and it's partly due to EQ (critically important) and partly to good recordings (also critically important).

 

The ONLY thing speakers do that headphones don't is smear the sound around in a room.

 

That depends on a given room and setup, doesn't it? But the room factor aside, you're of course free to think what you please. Still, back at our office and lab we listen to music on both headphones and speakers, to us the difference between these is substantial, yet none indicates what's better. Both are enjoyable, at least most of them when teamed properly etc. 

 

Yet since you've made your mind about all that and - as you've put it - 'you know better', we'll politely stop here. 

 

[AMR/iFi audio]

Double, sorry.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, dalethorn said:

 

The only thing I'm swimming upstream against is the fact that headphones and speakers are mixed into one subforum here, unlike most sites, and since the participants are quite obviously biased toward speakers (for a number of reasons), it's to be expected that they feel better about their speakers if they can convince themselves that headphones are "not as good" for music listening.  Me, I know better. I understand the physical differences, and why a person who is able to play a musical performance at realistic volume levels in their home might prefer that to having a headphone on their head or in their ears.  I can even understand the whumpy-thumpy aspect of the sound pressure on the body for those who like it (I certainly don't, although in a live performance it doesn't usually bother me).  All of that I understand, but none of it has to do with the sound, at least the beautiful natural sound I hear with my playback system.

 

My experience around here at CA is that there is not a real HP vs. speakers division.  Assuming I HAD to choose one or the other, I would probably go for HP's because they give me more of what I want in a listening experience (about 80% of my listening is HP, 20% is two channel).  However, the only point I want to make is not that one is better or worse, it's just that when it comes to certain specific things, like stereo effect, HP's can not do what a regular two channel can do and this is due to reality/physics.  Like you point out, HP's will never have room interactions like a two channel, and this is due by design (i.e. reality/physics).

 

As a certifiable audiophile, I don't rate imaging and soundstage as high as most other audiophiles do.  This is true rather I am listening to two channel or HP's.  I can't stand multichannel, though I did hear a $100K setup once that made it tolerable

[dalethorn]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

My experience around here at CA is that there is not a real HP vs. speakers division.  Assuming I HAD to choose one or the other, I would probably go for HP's because they give me more of what I want in a listening experience (about 80% of my listening is HP, 20% is two channel).  However, the only point I want to make is not that one is better or worse, it's just that when it comes to certain specific things, like stereo effect, HP's can not do what a regular two channel can do and this is due to reality/physics.  Like you point out, HP's will never have room interactions like a two channel, and this is due by design (i.e. reality/physics).

 

As a certifiable audiophile, I don't rate imaging and soundstage as high as most other audiophiles do.  This is true rather I am listening to two channel or HP's.  I can't stand multichannel, though I did hear a $100K setup once that made it tolerable

 

What I was getting at probably doesn't come across clearly, because even with a couple of decades of headphone listening and struggling with primitive equalizers, or DSP's such as Dirac makes, I never found a fully natural sound.  When I got my first parametric equalizer and worked with it for a couple of months, I was astonished at how the various problems of headphones such as "constricted" sound, harsh sound, weird soundstages or images etc. -- suddenly disappeared and the whole thing opened up into a realistic listening experience.

 

Until you have actually heard that, it seems likely that you wouldn't believe it possible.

[dalethorn]

10 minutes ago, AMR/iFi audio said:

 

That depends on a given room and setup, doesn't it? But the room factor aside, you're of course free to think what you please. Still, back at our office and lab we listen to music on both headphones and speakers and to us the difference between these is substantial. Yet since you've made your mind about all that and - as you've put it - 'you know better', we'll politely stop here. 

 

 

I hate to repeat myself, but it isn't about my impressions of sound through headphones -- it's about a discovery I made regarding what a parametric equalizer can do in the hands of someone who has the skill.

 

If you ever get to hear what I hear, you may change your tune.  I have heard what you hear BTW.